USC athletic director Pat Haden takes in the game Thursday at the Galen Center. Haden, along with USC president C.L. Max Nikias, will be among those presenting the Trojans’ case to the Infractions Appeals Committee at a hotel in downtown Indianapolis Saturday.

Despite recent history, an attorney who has represented other schools in NCAA appeals cases believes USC has a chance to win a portion of its appeal to be heard Saturday in Indianapolis.

Pompano Beach, Fla.-based lawyer Michael L. Buckner said USC could win back some of the football scholarships lost as part of last June’s sanctions but that the postseason ban likely would be upheld.

USC is seeking to have its scholarship reductions — 30 over three seasons, starting this year — and two-year bowl ban sliced in half. Those penalties were part of massive sanctions levied against the school’s football program after the NCAA’s Committee on Infractions determined major violations occurred related to former star tailback Reggie Bush.

USC president C.L. Max Nikias, athletic director Pat Haden and others will present their case to the Infractions Appeals Committee at a hotel in downtown Indianapolis, where the NCAA is headquartered.

J.K. McKay, USC’s associate athletic director for football, summed up the school’s position as follows: “Our primary contention is, given what we were found to have done, these are the harshest penalties ever meted out. When you compare them to other cases, probably unduly harsh, and we think they should be lessened.”

Buckner believes USC has a shot to get the scholarship penalty trimmed, and he ought to know. Buckner and his firm earned the only victory in an appeals case, on behalf of Alabama State, since the NCAA toughened the standards in January 2008. Since then, per NCAA bylaw 32.10.4.1, a penalty is determined to be excessive only if “it constitutes an abuse of discretion.” Ten other Division I appeals have failed.

Buckner said scholarship penalties traditionally have been calculated on a two-for-one basis. Using that formula, Buckner said, USC should have lost four scholarships over two seasons because Bush was the lone player implicated and he was deemed ineligible for portions of two seasons (2004 and ’05).

“Where they got 10 from, I have no idea,” Buckner said.

The NCAA did consider USC a “repeat violator,” which the Committee on Infractions factored into its final determination.

Buckner believes the two-year postseason ban was reasonable because Bush was ineligible for two bowl games. If it’s upheld, USC will be ineligible for the first Pac-12 Championship Game, scheduled for Dec. 3.

SCHOLARSHIP SITUATION

Once the one-day hearing is over, a decision probably won’t come for 4-6 weeks, NCAA spokesperson Stacey Osburn said. That would fall well after football’s national signing day on Feb. 2, leading USC fans and others to wonder: Just how many players can the Trojans add?

Neither school nor NCAA officials could provide a definitive answer. But, Osburn said, “generally speaking, when a school is appealing a penalty, that penalty is staid until a decision by the Infractions Appeals Committee is rendered.”

So, in theory, USC could sign 25 players this year to get to the NCAA limit of 85 before being subject to reductions in 2012. Or, more practically, Lane Kiffin and his staff will aim for 20, the allowable total if the scholarship portion of the appeal is granted.

That seems to be the direction they’re headed. USC has 60 scholarship players on its roster, including nine midyear enrollees who count toward the 2010-11 academic year. It has verbal commitments from 17 prospects with several offers still pending.

‘FINAL FRONTIER’

Acknowledging the success rate of appeals since January 2008 – less than 10 percent — Haden described his outlook as “realistic.”

“Those are the odds we face,” he said.

Still, USC should expect to be treated fairly by the five-member appeals committee, said Buckner, who asserted that isn’t always the case with the Committee on Infractions.

“At times they can be unprofessional,” Buckner said. “It seems like they already have their minds made up on certain issues. I don’t think they grasp the concept of fair process.”

Although they might feel the same way, USC’s representatives never would express that sentiment publicly. Since he took over as president last summer, Nikias replaced prickly Mike Garrett with PR-savvy Haden, who has said and done all the right things, including beefing up USC’s previously understaffed compliance office.

But will any of those efforts matter Saturday?

“Not at this (stage),” Buckner said. “It will help them from here on out.

“All these things USC is doing now … they should have been doing all that before the case was even over with.”

Many USC supporters also have wondered if recent, comparatively favorable rulings could help the school’s appeal. If Auburn’s Cam Newton and the Ohio State players who broke NCAA rules could participate in bowl games, why shouldn’t the Trojans be eligible?

Haden deemed those cases “irrelevant to us.” Buckner agreed, citing different processes and standards for student-athlete reinstatement cases as opposed to major enforcement issues.

“It’s not exactly the same situation,” he said.

Haden shot down suggestions that USC would sue the NCAA if unsuccessful, describing the appeal as “the final frontier.”